Comparative constructions typically involve three elements: a predicate and two noun phrases denoting the object of comparison and the standard of comparison. In example (1) the object of comparison is constituted by the first noun phrase (the tree), while the second noun phrase (the house) is the standard of comparison (the preposition than is the standard marker).
This chapter focuses on the morphological coding of the standard of comparison in comparative constructions. In the languages of Daghestan, the comparative meaning of a construction does not involve inflecting the adjective by degree (i.e. there is no morphological comparative degree), but the standard of comparison in such constructions is expressed by a spatial form, i.e. an inflected form of a nominal normally expressing a spatial relation. This is one of the most common strategies used to mark the standard of comparison in the languages of the world (see).
Cross-linguistically, other common strategies involve the use of particles (other than those expressing spatial relations), predicates meaning ‘exceed, surpass’, and conjoined comparatives (see Stassen 2013). Sometimes more than one strategy is available in one and the same language. In the languages of Daghestan, for instance, constructions with postpositions are also found.
Depending on the nature of the marker employed, spatially coded comparatives can be divided into three types: At-comparatives (i.e. essives), To-comparatives (i.e. latives), and From-comparatives (i.e. elatives) (cf. Stassen 2013).
This variation within the group of spatially coded comparatives, which was not considered for the purposes of the WALS map of comparative constructions, is the focus of the present investigation. Our goal is to classify the languages of Daghestan according to the type of spatial form used to mark the standard of comparison.
Most Daghestanian languages feature bimorphemic spatial case systems including:
The Godoberi (Avar-Andic) examples in (2) and (3) demonstrate how spatial forms are constructed.
| den | bel-qi | w-un-i-sːu |
| 1sg | mountain-ad | m-go-is-fut.def |
| ‘I will go to the mountains.’ | ||
| riχu-ƛi | reqi-me | bel-qi-ru |
| sheep-gen | herd-pl | mountain-ad-el |
| hiƛ’i | r-a-aƛa-da | |
| down | nhum.pl-come-prog.cvb-cop | |
| ‘The herds are coming down from the mountains.’ | ||
In the languages of Daghestan the standard of comparison is usually marked with a spatial form (see Spatial forms). There are cases, though less frequent, of languages featuring a specialized comparative marker (see Specialized comparative markers).
In comparative constructions, most languages of Daghestan mark the standard of comparison with a spatial form. In different languages, variation is observed not only with respect to the choice of a specific directionality marker (i.e. essive/lative/elative/translative), but also in terms of the localization marker employed, cf. examples (4) and (5), contrasting Standard Avar and Tindi (Avar-Andic), in which superelative and contessive are used respectively.
| di-da-sa | ɬik’-a-w | qazaq |
| 1sg-sup-el | good-adjz-m | worker |
| du-je=gi | šːʷ-ela-r=in | |
| 2sg-dat=add | get-fut-neg=emph | |
| ‘You will also not get a better farm worker than me.’ | ||
| wacːi | kj’e-ja | rehã-ɬːiː |
| brother | two-num | year-nm.obl.erg |
| muk’u-w | ija | jacːu-č’i |
| little-m | cop | sister-cont |
| ‘The brother is two years younger than the sister.’ | ||
In most languages of Daghestan elatives are used:
To these languages we might add those in which ablative forms are used (6): Udi (Lezgic), Kumyk, Nogai and Northern Azerbaijani (Turkic), and Armenian. Ablatives are commonly employed to mark the standard of comparison in the languages of the world (Creissels 2009: 624).
| Bakı | Kirovabad-dan | böyük-dür |
| Baku | Kirovabad-abl | big-cop.3sg |
| ‘Baku is bigger than Kirovabad.’ | ||
Essives are also quite frequent in Daghestan: - superessive in Bezhta (Tsezic), Akusha (= Standard Dargwa), Mehweb and Kubachi (Dargwa) - contessive in Andi, Bagvalal (as an alternative to the superelative) and Tindi (Avar-Andic) - inessive in Bats (Nakh)
Northern Akhvakh (Avar-Andic) features the supertranslative case, while in Hinuq (Tsezic) the so-called aloc-lative (i.e. animate location lative) is used alongside the superelative (Forker 2019).
In some languages the standard of comparison is marked with a dedicated suffix, sometimes called “comparative suffix” (7). This is true for: Chechen and Ingush (Nakh), Hunzib (Tsezic), Archi, Budukh, Mukhad Rutul and Tabasaran (Lezgic), Khinalug and Lak.
| iza | suo-l | dika | v-u |
| 3sg | 1sg-cmpr | good | m-cop |
| ‘He is better than me.’ | |||
However, it should be pointed out that, in some cases, this comparative suffix seems to include a spatial suffix, e.g. Khinalug -q’il:i (elative -l:i), Northern Tabasaran -t’an and Southern Tabasaran -č’an / -dakan (elative -an), Budukh -wor (elative -r). Archi -χur is reported to have some residual spatial usages (Daniel & Ganenkov 2009: 673-674).
A quite controversial question, which lies behind the classification of spatially coded comparatives, concerns the semantics of localization markers. In Section 3 we grouped languages according to whether they feature a “super”, “cont” or “ad” marker (along with the distinction between elatives and essives). However, to my understanding, it is not straightforward what the semantic difference between these three labels is. This is also demonstrated by the fact that in the literature there is quite a great deal of contradictory information concerning the labeling of such markers. Moreover, in some cases, the decision to call a certain marker “super” or “cont” was taken by the author based on the information provided in the Russian-language literature, in which such labels are rarely employed (in most Russian-language grammars the different localization markers are listed by simply naming them “series 1”, “series 2”, and so on).
Alekseev, M. E. (1994). “Rutul”. In: The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Volume 4. Part 2. Ed. by R. Smeets. Delmar NY: Caravan Books, pp. 147-212.
Authier, G. (2009). Grammaire kryz. Paris: Peeters.
Berg, H. van den (1995). A grammar of Hunzib. Munich: Lincom.
Cercvadze, I. I. (1965). Andiuri ena [The Andi language]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.
Chechuro, I. (2019). “Nominal morphology of Mehweb”. In: The Mehweb language. Essays on phonology, morphology and syntax. Ed. by M. Daniel, N. Dobrushina and D. Ganenkov. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 39-72.
Dum-Tragut, J. (2009). Armenian. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Forker, D. (2019). “The impact of language contact on Hinuq: Phonology, morphology, syntax, and lexicon”. In: Language Typology and Universals 71, pp. 29-62.
Forker, D. (2020). “Avar grammar sketch”. In: Oxford Handbook of Languages of the Caucasus. Ed. by M. Polinsky. To appear. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haspelmath, M. (1993). A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Khalilova, Z. (2009). “A grammar of Khwarshi”.
Nichols, J. (1994). “Chechen”. In: The Indigenous Languages of the Caucasus, vol. 4: The Northeast Caucasian Languages, Part 2. Ed. by R. Smeets. Delmar, NY: Caravan Press, pp. 1-77.
Nichols, J. (2011). Ingush grammar. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Sosenskaja, T. and S. Tatevosov (1996). “Comparative construction”. In: Godoberi. Ed. by A. Kibrik, S. Tatevosov and A. Eulenberg. Munich/Newcastle: Lincom Europa, pp. 167-169.
Sumbatova, N. R. and R. O. Mutalov (2003). A Grammar of Icari Dargwa. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Абдуллаев, С. Н. (1954). Грамматика даргинского языка [Dargwa grammar]. Махачкала: ИЯЛИ.
Алексеев, М. Е. and С. Х. Шихалиева (2003). Табасаранский язык [Tabasaran]. Москва: Академия.
Бокарёв, Е. А. (1959). Цезские (дидойские) языки Дагестана [Tsezic (Didoic) languages of Daghestan]. Москва: Академия.
Гаджиахмедов, Н. Э. (2000). Словоизменительные категории имени и глагола в кумыкском языке [Nominal and verbal inflectional categories in Kumyk]. Махачкала: Юпитер.
Ганенков, Д. С. (2008). “Морфологическая и семантическая характеристика падежей удинского языка [Morphological and semantic characteristics of Udi]”. In: Удинский сборник: грамматика, лексика, история языка [Udi. Grammar. Lexicon. History of the language]. Ed. by М. Е. Алексеев, Т. А. Майсак, Д. С. Ганенков and Ю. А. Ландер. Москва: Академия, pp. 11-53.
Дешериев, Ю. Д. (1953). Бацбийский язык [Bats]. Москва: Академия.
Дешериев, Ю. Д. (1959). Грамматика хиналугского языка [Khinalug grammar]. Москва: Академия.
Дмитриев, Н. К. (1940). Грамматика кумыксого языка [Kumyk grammar]. Москва: Академия.
Жирков, Л. И. (1965). Лакский язык [Lak]. Москва: Академия.
Ибрагимов, Г. Х. (2004). Рутульский язык [Rutul]. Махачкала: Народы Дагестана.
Казенин, К. И. (2013). Синтаксис современного лаксого языка [Syntax of contemporary Lak]. Махачкала: ИЯЛИ.
Кибрик, А. Е. (1977). Опыт структурного описания арчинского языка. Том II. Таксономическая грамматика [Structural description of Archi. Volume II. Taxonomic grammar]. Москва: Издательство Академии наук СССР.
Магомедбекова, З. М. (1967). Ахвахский язык [Akhvakh]. Тбилиси: Мецниереба.
Магомедбекова, З. М. (1971). Каратинский язык. Тбилиси: Мецниереба.
Магомедова, П. Т. (1999). Чамалинско-русский словарь [Chamalal-Russian dictionary]. Махачкала: ИЯЛИ.
Магомедова, П. Т. (2003). Тиндинско-русский словарь [Tindi-Russian dictionary]. Махачкала: ИЯЛИ.
Магомедова, П. Т. (2004). Багвалинско-русский словарь [Bagvalal-Russian dictionary]. Махачкала: ИЯЛИ.
Магомедова, П. Т. (2012). Тиндинский язык [The Tindi language]. Махачкала: ИЯЛИ.
Магомедова, П. Т. and Р. Ш. Халидова (2001). Каратинско-русский словарь [Karata-Russian dictionary]. Махачкала: ИЯЛИ.
Магометов, А. А. (1963). Кубачинский язык [Kubachi]. Тбилиси: Академия Наук Грузинской ССР.
Магометов, А. А. (1965). Табасаранский язык: исследование и тексты [The Tabasaran lannguage: research and texts]. Тбилиси: Мецниереба.
Магометов, А. А. (1970). Агульский язык [Aghul]. Тбилиси: Мецниереба.
Мадиева, Г. И. (1965). Грамматический очерк бежтинского языка [Grammatical profile of Bezhta]. Махачкала: ДГУ.
Махмудова, С. М. (2002). “Грамматические классы слов и грамматические категории рутульского языка [Grammatical word classes and grammatical categories of Rutul]”.
Микайлов, К. Ш. (1967). Арчинский язык [Archi]. Махачкала: ИЯЛИ.
Саидова, П. А. (1973). Годоберинский язык. Грамматический очерк, тексты, словарь [Godoberi. Grammar, texts, dictionary]. Махачкала: ИЯЛИ.
Сосенская, Т. Б. (1999). “Сравнительные конструкции [Comparative constructions]”. In: Элементы цахурского языка в типологическом освещении [Elements of the Tsakhur language in a typological perspective]. Ed. by А. Е. Кибрик and С. Г. Татевосов. Москва: Наследие, pp. 560-568.
Сосенская, Т. Б. (2001). “Сравнительные конструкции [Comparative constructions]”. In: Багвалинский язык. Грамматика, тексты, словари [The Bagvalal language. Grammar, texts, dictionaries]. Ed. by А. Е. Кибрик, Е. А. Лютикова and С. Г. Татевосов. Москва: Наследие, pp. 408-424.
Талибов, Б. Б. (2007). Будухский язык. Москва: Академия.
Ханмагомедов, Б. Г. and К. Т. Шалбузов (2001). Табасаранско-русский словарь [Tabasaran-Russian dictionary]. Москва: Наука.
Яковлев, Н. Ф. (1960). Морфология чеченского языка [Chechen morphology]. Грозный: Издательство Академии наук СССР.
The superelative suffix -t:-iš is mentioned by Mikailov (1967: 60) as the marker used to code the standard of comparison in Archi, but Kibrik (1977: 59) reports the dedicated comparative marker -χur instead.↩
2019, Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, NRU HSE